Will County presents 'Way Forward 2050' draft plan, model and draft project list to committee

Will County transportation staff and consultants presented a draft long-range transportation plan called "Way Forward 2050" to the Will County Public Works and Transportation Committee, describing a county-specific travel demand model, a draft project list of nearly 200 projects and next steps in public outreach.

"This plan is a data driven plan," said Samantha Primer, planner with Civiltech, during a presentation that summarized more than a year of data collection, advisory‑committee meetings and two waves of public engagement. Jeff, the county transportation leader who opened the presentation, told committee members they had been emailed the draft project list and asked them to submit comments to Chief of Staff Pelkey promptly so the team could incorporate feedback before returning the final plan for approval.

Why it matters: the LRTP is a guiding, non‑programming document that shapes how the county defines goals, pursues funding and prioritizes projects over the next quarter century. The consultants said the county will receive the travel demand model for ongoing use to evaluate projects and adjust priorities as conditions change.

Most important facts: Civiltech described a modeling and evaluation process that produced two socioeconomic scenarios (a baseline and a higher‑growth scenario tied to major industrial and warehousing developments). From an initial large inventory the team said it had narrowed county roadway priorities to 48 county projects covering about 60 miles; only three of those were system expansion (new roadway) projects, with the rest focused on reconstruction and modernization. The consultants said the draft project list also includes pedestrian and bicycle projects, transit projects, grade crossing improvements and municipal and state projects. The team said the list now approaches 200 projects in total and includes 13 policy recommendations.

Public engagement and metrics: the team reported robust survey responses in early outreach — "almost 900 responses on our first survey, and about 700 on our second," Primer said — plus about 200 trail survey responses and multiple pop‑up events that drew more than 100 attendees at individual locations. Second‑wave workshops, the presenters said, drew smaller turnout (roughly 20 to 60 people per workshop). The project website (ourwaywill.com) hosts engagement materials, recordings of virtual open houses and the wave summaries, the consultants said.

Project priorities and evaluation: the presenters described an evaluations framework that ranked projects using data tied to plan goals — safety, freight movement, access and mobility, and sustainability — and scored roadway projects on measures that included substandard miles reduced, bridge repairs and travel‑time impacts for freight. The team said Wilmington–Peotone Road emerged as the highest priority county project in their evaluation, followed by other corridors including Exchange Street, Center Road and sections of Weber Road. The financial analysis is still in progress; the team said it is building project cost estimates, analyzing historical and forecasted revenue streams and testing sensitivity to inflation, maintenance costs and trends in motor fuel tax revenues as vehicle fleets change.

Modeling approach and scenarios: Brian DeSalle, Civiltech traffic modeler, described two modeled socioeconomic futures: a baseline based on regional forecasts and an alternative with accelerated build‑out of large industrial developments. "We just received our data last week," he said, and early review suggested the proposed county‑network improvements would largely accommodate the higher‑growth scenario, though the county can amend the plan when new information — for example, a change in airport operations — becomes available.

Next steps and timeline: presenters said the final advisory committee meeting is scheduled for May 20 (a draft plan review), followed by in‑person public hearings in three locations the team listed as Romeoville, New Lenox and Des Moines. The team asked committee members to review the emailed draft project list (which, they said, contains county projects plus state, municipal, bike/ped and transit items) and submit comments to Chief Pelkey so the consultants can incorporate them into a final draft expected to return to the committee for approval in August.

Committee discussion highlighted several topics: the ability to update the plan as conditions change (members requested a living‑document approach), how the travel demand model could be revised to include large developments or an airport change, how bicycle and pedestrian projects were evaluated when data are sparse, and outreach and advertising methods (newsletter, PACE bus interior ads, social media and paid promotions) to boost attendance at public hearings.

The presentation concluded with staff asking members to review the draft project list and return comments via Chief Pelkey; no committee vote was taken on the plan at this meeting.

The county's project team on the record included: "Tina Figueroa, part of the project team focusing mostly on community engagement"; Samantha Primer, planner, Civiltech; Mike Folkeny, senior project manager, Civiltech; and Brian DeSalle, traffic engineer/traffic modeler, Civiltech. Committee members asked for dates and engagement summaries and were told the materials and recordings are available on the project website.